At Least Give This Beef Producer Some Credit for Being Honest
Tuesday, June 10, 2008 at 11:48AM 
I’ve been traveling and trying to meet some writing deadlines, so am just in the last day or so catching up here. There’s definitely a lot of catching up to do. The growing concerns about the viability of our food system expressed by many on my previous posting seem to be coming to pass nearly before our eyes--one day it's meatballs, today it's tomatoes.
I also appreciate the comments from Bill Marler and C2, in particular, since they help keep us in touch with the conventional wisdom out there. (Though was Marler in his literature search on raw milk actually acknowledging that some studies show health benefits from raw milk? If so, watch out, it could be bad for business.) I appreciate as well how they present themselves as just doing their jobs—Marler going after the big bad corporations that allow pathogens into our foods and C2 taking the hand he is dealt, and enforcing the regulations on the books.
Especially intriguing is the New York Times article Marler linked to about the court fight over the contaminated church supper meatballs, and Nebraska Beef’s response, essentially saying consumers should have known there was a significant risk of getting sick from the beef.
Imagine if someone got sick from raw milk poured on cold cereal, and the farmer said, “Hey, bonehead, you should know this food is very susceptible to contamination.”
No serious producers of raw milk would do that, since they take so many precautions to protect against just that kind of situation, and it rarely occurs. But Nebraska Beef is being very honest when it says the church ladies should have known better. Really, all you have to do is read the many government warnings about raw meat and news articles about illnesses and recalls—or just look at the photos of the feedlots—and you’ll know that ordinary ground beef from the corner grocery or Wal-Mart is a high-risk proposition.
Marler is quoted as saying the Nebraska Beef approach is “boneheaded,” and he’s probably right. However, it’s boneheaded not because it’s dishonest, but because it likely won’t succeed in court.
Marler or whoever represents the church ladies will fan the flames of fear—this big bad corporation Nebraska Beef sold you their beef based on a supposition it is safe. A church lady was killed. The next victims could be you, or your children.
We as a society have two problems we can’t face up to—at least not yet. Our leaders can’t acknowledge that our food system is unsustainable, despite daily evidence to the contrary. Moreover, we see personal responsibility as a foreign concept. So the church ladies will most likely win. But, give Nebraska Beef some credit for being honest.
As for C2, he/she regularly tells us in one way or another that he/she is just doing his/her job. “I think you have the right to overturn these rules by convincing the ‘powers that be’ why they are not needed. Then go forward with your raw milk consumption legally.”
The problem with that argument is that the regulators each day make choices about which regulations they will enforce, and which they will ignore. Once they decide to enforce certain regulations, they have to decide how hard and how widely they’ll enforce them.
It’s clear that in California, Pennsylvania, and New York the regulators have decided to enforce the raw-milk regulations super aggressively. Why? Probably because the U.S. Food and Drug Administration told them to. Maybe there’s a carrot of some special federal funding down the road, or some other federal help on another problem the states care about. Maybe some Washington pols have received “suggestions” from the drug industry, or the milk lobby, and asked the FDA for some help.
But to suggest that the current regulator obsessiveness about raw milk is driven primarily about “safety” and “protection” is either naïve or dishonest. There are too many other supposedly safety-related regulations that are allowed to slide, or ignored completely.
In their views, Marler and C2 are just a couple of working stiffs doing the noblest of jobs—protecting little kids from illness. Best for such individuals not to think too much about the corrosive effects of the fear-mongering and finger-pointing they foster.
Reader Comments (61)
http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/food-poisoning/news/20080610/salmonella-tomato-warning-expanded
The Salmonella outbreak has been ongoing since April. It has spread before the media and/or authorities notified the public. As of today, one man's death maybe linked with the Salmonella as a contributing factor. It is close to mid June and the "source" is as of yet unknown? This time of year, NM imports most it its tomatos from Mexico....Geee could that be the source? It appears to have begun in TX and NM.
Perhaps buying local will be the "in" thing to do. We have 12 tomato plants heavy with green fruit.
I like what this person is saying.
Her letter asked a series of questions, including:
"The FDA was able to publish a list of states, territories, and countries where tomatoes are grown and harvested which have NOT been associated with this outbreak. If the agency possesses evidence that would allow it publish such a list, why did the FDA not compel a recall of tomatoes from the other regions that were not listed?"
Speaking of code reds, the South Korean government is on the verge of collapse because 200,000-plus demonstrated against imports of American beef (http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0611/p12s01-woap.html). They fear our beef has mad cow disease. Maybe they've been reading too much about our feedlot practices.
That's a horrible thought!
Steve, when someone asks a question such as that, I wonder if they allow their children do such things. Supposedly there are no stupid questions...I beg to differ.
"The dirtier the milk...."
I can only assume that he and others who think as he does, prefer chemical laden processed foods (or is that phoods?). Those who prefer foods in their natural state are lumped into the "(insert preferred derogatory name)" pile. I cannot understand why.
As for those who say it is a "safety" issue; do you really think that anyone who consumes any product doesn't believe there should be safety/sanitary standards in place? Those standards should be fair and obtainable on a consistant basis.
Since you are being generous and brave enough to post here again (as though we don't know you have cajones to post anywhere you want. LOL), I agree to join you and David in a toast to our constructive communication, collaboration, and cooperation. I'll keep my drink simple: a very nice wine from France produced in the finest of soils (approved by miguel--I'll share the glass...I mean bottle...with him).
Seriously, the most telling point in your comment relates to the supposition that Dairy A is accusing the plaintiff's of being at fault because of "knowingly feeding their child a product that might be contaminated." Is that dairy then admitting their product was or could have been contaminated (not what I've read here previously)?? How can they have it both ways--question to the gang.
Darth
To Darth: They can't, but it can't hurt to try.
Sorry for the slow response, but I didn't understand your question. Does "two ways" mean the warning label on milk? It is supposedly there to inform consumers that the product could contain live bacteria, so that if a parent chooses to feed it to their child, they know they are incurring a risk. It's simply a government requirement - not any kind of inference of "contamination".
Sylvia
"Phoods" - heh.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080611/ap_on_re_us/raw_milk_crackdown
http://www.marlerblog.com/2008/04/articles/legal-cases/organic-pastures-where-there-is-smoke-there-is-fire/
"The problem with that argument is that the regulators each day make choices about which regulations they will enforce, and which they will ignore."
No disagreement with you on that point. Just look at the way our domestic tomatoes are being sacrificed for Mexico. It would seem as though (I do not have all the facts) they also killed the domestic spinach industry with a nationwide recall (no brand names) two years ago using a similar amount of epidemiological evidence as the Mexico-tomato connection now. Why no recall this time? I'm not much into conspiracy theories, but is this more about protecting trade than food safety?" I've seen similar questions asked about Mad Cow disease policies--where does food safety end and politics begin? They are intertwined and underlie the apparent inconsistencies in how different products are regulated.
Reading that article posted by Steve Bemis and the comments that followed made me wonder if the raw milk community might want to practice some "self-regulation" of a "bad player" in the industry before FDA gets the opportunity with a multistate outbreak. Okay, accuse me of fear mongering again, but ignoring the possibility could be deadly for your industry. If a multi-state outbreak occurs (and at this time, there is only 1 dairy in the country that would most likely be involved), FDA will NOT be coming to the defense of the smaller farmer's that sell locally at farmer's markets or participate in small scale cow shares. There will not be a list of "safe raw dairies not involved in the outbreak." LOL. Working stiff raw dairymen(women) will be shut down as fast as the big one despite the obvious differences in risk.
C2